Blog 4 Jordan Day

Visitor of the day

You
from

Authors

Brag Stats

Comments:25,004
Articles:2,000
Article Hits:12,459,805
Unique Visitors:2,000,438
Rss Subscribers:3,052
Comment Subscribers:2,530
Spammers:136,315
Generated :757,671 spams
Monitoring:3,942,477 spam IPs

Powered by Qwaider Shield

If you were Nasrallah, What would you do?

By: Qwaider

On:Tuesday, August 01, 2006 10:21:03 AM
In:Thoughts
Viewed: (6239) times

Currently 4.6/5 Stars.
1
2
3
4
5

Rated 4.6/5 stars (188 votes cast) Thanks for your vote!

With the impending full scale invasion and occupation of 6 to 7 miles in the Lebanese territories, what would you do if you were Nasrallah?

Israel is not keeping it a secret. Calling for three brigades to join the efforts in southern Lebanon. Which is just another proof that the whole country is just a huge military. But that's a different matter altogether. Total of 5 brigades, 3 Infantry and 2 artillery.

So Nasrallah knows they're coming. Or at least that's what they're telling the whole world. Which makes me a little bit skeptic. It's totally against ALL military rules of secrecy. When everyone knows then where did the element of surprise go?

Anyway, the way I see it is as follows, Nasralla has one of these options:

They will stand their grounds and be wiped out
They will booby trap the hell out of everything and pullback
Pull back, save their men and live to fight another day
Wait for the cease fire and go back to guerilla warfare
Similar to 1 but actually win. How? Very difficult to say

As you can see, the outcome is not great in all cases. Apparently, the decision has been made in the Israeli government that the high number of casualties are acceptable. Which is a serious shift in policy and rules of engagement.

It's apparent that they're provoking Hezbollah at the moment to start using or deplete Hezbollah's arsenal of medium range rockets that they've been seriously afraid of

I hate to say this, but so far the way I see this is that Hezbollah is really playing nice. If they can bomb Haifa, why not target the refineries and petrochemical plants there? Two answers. a) Katyusha's are not that accurate so it's impossible to do so. or b) Hezbollah has a different agenda.

As the upcoming events unfold, it's apparent that Lebanon is still paying the ultimate price for the Israeli aggression. Syria and Iran are just loud on words. The EU and US are conflicted about the approach. The French are bluntly defying the US and the Arab countries are still trying to find their balls.

Other Memories Documented on August 01

The stalker, and the obsessed!..
by: Qwaider.
In: 2009
Viewed: (6452) times

If you really wanna speak your mind!..
by: Qwaider.
In: 2008
Viewed: (1290787) times

Previewing: Tropic Thunder!..
by: Qwaider.
In: 2008
Viewed: (8406) times

Arab kids, western world..
by: Qwaider.
In: 2007
Viewed: (10396) times

Do you lead? or do you follow?..
by: Qwaider.
In: 2006
Viewed: (5880) times

« Do you lead? or do you follow?

Answering Eweeks top 25 products of the last 25 years »

Memories....

#1
Nas
Said
On: 8/1/2006 12:11:15 PM

he has no options...he has admitted miscalculating israel's response, but then again who could calculate this. his only option is to fight and they will likley not pull pack but immerse themselves in the south and hold the ground in the valley where they've won before and then pray

for a cease fire or a truce or a deal. its what he was hoping for in the first place, he just thought based on history that Israel would be more willing to deal. if syria was still in lebanon they probably would have.

Israel is not going to risk losing against hizbollah this time. They were embarassed before and they will demolish lebanon to rubble before they let it happen again. The problem that hizbollah poses is guirella warfare and Israel has never faired well on the ground, whether against egyptians, syrians, jordanians or hizbollah. So they depend on the airforce.

The question then is not "what would nasarallah do?" but rather "is olmert prepared to immerse himself in a guirella war that he will not win without sending in ground troops?"

#2
Husams
Said
On: 8/1/2006 2:20:07 PM

Well, what is noticeable here is that Israel are becoming more determine to continue the battle till the end, after Qana bombing than before the bombing, based on Olmert’s speech yesterday. As if Israel just passed the world’s public opinion shock without much political causalities. So now the road is widely open in front IDF, they have all the equipment needed, inside Israel they are still highly willing to sacrifice more losses while looking for a solid victory of this war, it’s not a war about self interests anymore, rather it’s a war of self proof, so I don’t think anything will stop them in the near future.

Nasrallah is really without much choice, but they will stand their ground, more probably if the war continued they will be highly weakened, by they won’t be wipe out as you can’t wipe out an ideology by war, unless you kill them till the last one which is around 40% of Lebanon. This will most likely turn Lebanon into instability as the one seen now in Iraq, but this time, a smaller Hizballah groups will act against the Israeli army and the NATO forces if it’s deployed in Lebanon, and any Lebanese supporting them. Turning Lebanon into another Iraq would be the worst nightmare for any Lebanese. And won’t even be a better security for Israel in the future.

Another scenario is a cease of fire where Hizballah is a part of it or at least agree on it, where prisoners are exchanged at least. This will hold up the unity of Lebanon. And it will be a frank victory for Nasrallah. In anyway Nasrallah will go as much as it takes, nothing left to lose.

#3
Juan Free
Said
On: 8/1/2006 6:25:54 PM

While miscalculating Israel's response, Nasrallah has gained something from this squirmish. It's not likely that more can be gained in the way of regional and international influence by staying on and fighting the Israel military face to face.

And so Nasrallah can lose men and weaponry. The latter was supplied by Iran. With the price of oil what it is today, Iran could replace the 5 - 10k missiles from a couple months oil profits (I exagerate for effect).

And so you are left with loss of men. Who have been trained by Iran, which takes time.

There's just no upside to losing men and so when Nasrallah sees the Israeli's coming he pulls back, gives up the missiles and munitions, and lives to fight another day. And, he does so with a bit more prestige and a bit more influence with Iran by being the good boy than previously.

Lebanon is completely fucked, but Nasrallah doesn't really give a shit about that.

Israel will have created a buffer zone, somewhat diminished the threat of missile attacks (for a very short period of time), lessened the enthusiastic support in the U.S. and increased EU resistance.

Iran is a more complicated story. And, yes, in dark rooms powerful people will be drawing up plans for regime change in Iran. It seemed like lunacy two years ago...but invading Iraq seemed far fetched on 9.12.

Have there ever been less statesmen on all sides than we have today? U.N., U.S., EU, Lebanon, Israel, rest of the arab world....there are no statesmen.

#4
lammoush
Said
On: 8/1/2006 11:33:43 PM

5alas, 5arbaneh 5arbaneh, go 4 the max

#5
Ola
Said
On: 8/1/2006 11:46:07 PM

Ba3dain keep in mind that if Nasrullah didn't strike back, the repercussions could've been worse than this! The disteny of resistance movements in the Middle East would be in grave danger

#6
Qwaider
Said
On: 8/2/2006 12:22:42 AM

Apparently, there is no right answer. And the resistance (everywhere) is always doomed.
The interesting thing about this specific case is that Hezbollah are actually very disciplined people. They don't go anywhere and become thugs raping and drinking around. Which in its essence an amazing feat (Look at PLO, despite their cause, they weren't all that great when it came to treating people). What I mean is that they are not corruptible by Money, women or booze

Anyway, that's a different issue altogether. There always seems to be propaganda on both sides. With and against, both exaggerating (to say the least) their position. Who knows what's going on!!